Social media switches attacks to partner of MP, Kiwiblog prominent

Yesterday the social media bash wagon continued attacking Green MP Golriz Ghahraman, but also widened attacks to her partner Guy Williams, by dredging up historic tweets.

David Farrar chose to feed red meat to his baying crowd at Kiwiblog, further inflaming a nasty campaign against Ghahraman

Particularly this one.

Attention Twitter! Some of you have pointed out 2 years ago I tweeted a photo of Don Brash from a car and joked that I should run him over and then chill out like a nutcase. I now realise this was a shit joke and a shit thing to say. I’m embarrassed that I said it. Sorry Don. pic.twitter.com/PMH2O4lVcA

Williams is a comedian, but that was a crap joke about Don Brash. Fair enough to criticise it.

But to bring it up nearly two years later to add to the Ghahraman pile on is also crappy.

Ghahrama’s past also keeps being dredged up and misrepresented (more than she misrepresented it herself) – for example I have seen a cropped photo of her and a criminal she was involved in defending as a lawyer.

David Farrar chose to include the two year old tweet in this post David Seymour on free speech – he claimed ” this tweet this morning” even though it is clearly dated September 11 2017, which was before Ghahraman became an MP.

Seymour used strong language about a political opponent (and they are not words I would use) but compare that to this tweet this morning:

Joking about running someone over because you don’t like their politics.

Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t have a problem with Williams’ tweet by itself. But I ask people to imagine this.

Think if the partner of a National MP tweeted about whether they should run over a Green MP. The media would be denouncing it as hate speech and inciting violence.

Ghahraman does have legitimate security concerns, based on the vile messages about lynching her on a private Facebook group. The people responsible should be held accountable.

I think it was particularly poor of Farrar to include this tweet in an op ed by David Seymour that he posted. He would have known this would have fed Kiwiblog commenters already at times raging rampant over his revised site rules.

Comments on the thread include:

Brian Marshall:

She is a menace to freedom. Huge threat.
If anyone can’t see what David Seymour is referring to, then I suggest they don’t belong in a New Zealand Parliament.
The most disgusting thing is that David Seymour is described as some sort of Nazi, but those proposing Hate Speech laws are acting like Fascists of which Nazi’s are branch.

hullkiwi:

I am in total agreement with you Brian. Her utterances on this topic and other matters are an affront to democracy and with it, she is a menace to democracy.

David Garrett:

Yeah but did she actually get death threats?? Please refer to my comment above… In short, if the polis think you have been credibly threatened they are in there for you…some little snowflake who thinks she’s been threatened: Not so much…

alien:

It is interesting that in a week that a report on bullying etc in parliament we see some of these people and media bullying the leader of the act party. I’m sure we’ve all heard these green mps say far far worse about national mps and a prime minister.

Given the levels of vitriole directed at Gharaman on Kiwiblog over the last few days that’s rather ironic, defending Seymour and implying ‘green mps’ must be far worse (with no evidence given).

Lipo:

As the discussion on Free Speech is being had, I heard Peter Williams this morning say that he thought Hate Speech should be decided by (and only by) the recipient of the intended words. While this has some merit I think this is wrong.
Hate speech should only be defined as “Hate Speech” by the person speaking the words.
It is always what the words meant to say not on how the recipient received them

That’s a novel approach.

I don’t know if Peter Williams is being quoted correctly, but claims like that are ridiculous, and Isee no chance of the scaremongering claims getting anywhere near law.

the deity formerly known as nigel6888:

So a refugee politician who specialises in abusing and baiting anyone who doesnt share her communistic objectives has managed to get a few cretins to abuse her back.

and……….. trumpets……….. she’s the victim!

Utterly remarkable for its predictable banality.

I have seen quite a few cretins claiming to be victims in this debate. Seems to be a common approach these days (prominently used by Donald Trump) – attack, then claim to be the victim.

GPT1:

I do not understand the carry on re. Seymour’s comment. I guess it could be argued that he should have said “her position on this issue is a threat to freedom” but it seemed to be a robust political – rather than personal – rebuttal.

As it happens I agree that Ms Ghahraman’s attempts to regulate free speech have the effect of being an attack on our free society.

‘Attempts to to regulate free speech” have been grossly overstated in this debate. Ghahraman has expressed her opinion, as has Seymour. That is free speech in action.

There is a lot of hypocrisy on this, defending Seymour’s right criticise as he sees fit, but attacking Ghahraman for doing the same thing, trying to shout and shut her down.

Defenders of Ghahraman also come under fire. Wangas Feral:

That Collins and other National women MPs jumped in as White Knights to come to the aid of GG is the most upsetting thing in this whole affair. Making it a gender issue shows that they are no better than the professional victims of the left. Collins has really gone down in my estimation now.

Kiiwiblog has always had a smattering of worthwhile comments amongst the noise. Fentex:

Finding someone representative of something relevant is needed to make the point – ideally DPF wants to find a quote by Golriz Ghahraman representing the position he wants highlighted.

And wouldn’t finding quotes from her supporting Seymour’s position she’s uniquely dangerous go some way to that?

This is what she’s quoted saying…

“it is vital that the public is involved in a conversation about what speech meets the threshold for being regulated, and what mix of enforcement tools should be used.”

…and I think she’s been vilified because that statement takes the implicit position there is speech that must be regulated.

While I beleive people do accept incitement to riot or murder is a crime and is properly outlawed and punishable I think some, and clearly Seymour, suspects Goriz means something altogether more oppressive and intrusive which constitutes a “menace to freedom.”

After all what we all broadly accept as improper speech (incitement to commit crimes etc) is already illegal, so therefore any conversation about new restrictions must be about something else – something not yet illegal.

I think I understand his point, and I suspect many objecting to his attitude misunderstand the subject and have interpreted it in a different context (i.e if they already suspected Seymour of racism they may see different implications and meaning in his statement).

If you keep your eye on the subject and don’t let identities distract you there’s a continual ongoing debate about hateful speech and discussion of what might be done to avoid dangers it engenders*, but please don’t go haring off on tangents about different issues – it doesn’t help and only emboldens those who wish to use tactics of distraction and tribalism.

Maggy Wassilieff:

Ghahraman has made her position clear…
she believes our law does not protect groups identified by gender, sexual orientation, religion, or disability.

59 Comments

Trevors_elbow

Soooo…. Ghahraman is dangerous in the political sense if you believe in western democracy. She is careful with her words but makes it clear she wants to suppress views she doesn’t agree with…..using intersectionality arguments to cover her authoritarian intent… just another Marxist in designer clohhes

Seymour has used political hyperbole to have a crack at her and predictably the small but extremely vocal and connected leftie activists have tried to scream Seymour down and smear him by associating him with the alt right crazy tag….

And of course Pete runs with it….

Free speech is important. The media fully reporting what Seymours position is would be very helpful… but I wont hold my breathe on that…

“the small but extremely vocal and connected leftie activists have tried to scream Seymour down’

I have seen a lot more of extreme vocals directed at Ghahraman than at Seymour. With claims that Seymour as the victim – when all that’s happened is that some have criticised what he said, as is their right in a free speech society.

Trevors_Elbow

Pete. Here is the thing. Ghahraman being abused and threatened is not on. Its wrong.

But the Left in this country are very organised in terms of making noise – calling for boycotts – making assault seem ok (Joyce struck with a dildo what a LAUGH!, Paul Henry physically accosted resulting in a person being charged and convicted – he deserved nasty Tory…contrast that with the react to that nutter attack James Shaw) – organised little pile on’s on to anyone who disagrees with them publicly

Most righties just don’t bother with the village square shouting machine i.e. twitter. its pointless. We sit back and just think what the….

On Seymour – he can handle been attacked in the various media channels – but its the right of reply that is missing, its the normal name calling and shaming the left practice that makes people stand up and say back off.

Seymour is no victim – he isnt claiming to be – he is pushing back on being misrepresented…

DPF’s post contained this:

[To recap, I was asked about Green MP Golriz Ghahraman’s stance on free speech. In her own words “it is vital that the public is involved in a conversation about what speech meets the threshold for being regulated, and what mix of enforcement tools should be used.”

I believe that such an idea, and by extension politicians who promote it, is a danger to our free society. When asked about Ghahraman’s position, in the middle of a 15-minute radio interview, I responded that I thought she was a ‘menace to freedom.’]

The left and their media runners have linked that to Golriz needing protection… what utter bs.

Maggy Wassilieff

The media fully reporting what Seymours position is would be very helpful… but I wont hold my breathe on that…
That was the reason David Farrar posted Seymour’s Opinion piece… The MSM would not run it.As various media outlets have refused to run an op ed from David Seymour defending himself, I have agreed to run it.

Alan Wilkinson

Corky

”Ghahraman has stated what she believes, and we should be debating things like that. But we are nowhere near any sort of legal clampdown on ‘free speech’ that some are claiming.”

No, but it should be obvious we have started down that road. And if we don’t rubbish nuts like
Ghahraman, then what’s the point of democracy ( or what’s left of it)? The time for discussion is past. Her and people like her have had too much input into the legislative fabric of this country, much to our detriment in my opinion.

Kitty Catkin

Maggy Wassilieff

I was shocked when I saw the visual connected with Guy Williams tweet… much more powerful than the tweet itself… as it shows the target and the means to harm/kill the target.

So I had other postings up on Kiwi blog:
How on earth has the MSM kept the wraps on William’s tweet for the last 2 years?

Imagine that tweet being placed on the front page of every newspaper in the country.

and in reply to someone commenting:Lots of folks aren’t on twitter…

but it rather spoils the narrative that it is just the Right-Wing that are abusing/threatening folk in our little land.

Not the sort of thing the MSM wants to run with at the moment.
Remember we are meant to believe that it is Don Brash that threatens our Freedoms, but clearly the man is subject to unconscionable threats.

Kimbo

Humour is personal. Personally I thought Williams’ tweet was quite humourous and would be equally applicable for any politician of any stripe or gender. But that’s just me.

I’d suggest the issue is one of hypocrisy – in the light of the abuse Golriz has suffered, and by the standards that she seems to be demanding should be imposed to stop what she deems hate speech…her partner engaged in it. So, contrary to Pete George, it is relevant to highlight his tweet, irrespective of its age. Hence many are claiming Golriz’s intent, if put into action will criminalise political opinions she does not like, and reimpose blasphemy laws by stealth.

Maggy Wassilieff

Kimbo

Fair enough, although I think you mid-represent Williams’ intent. His explicit musings may have said and/or implied therwise, but then that is why it is…a joke. The reversal of expectation thing, but then explaining the joke ruins it.

Maybe what you meant was you do not like any comments about hurting or harming others, jokes included whether in light-hearted jest or with barely-concealed malevolence. For my part Williams was light hearted, hence I found the gallows humour amusing. Like I joke to my wife about suffocating her in her sleep with a pillow if she vexes me too much. Clearly I have issues. 😳😂

Trevors_Elbow

how quickly you excuse a call to violence Blazer – not surprised but Williams is an idiot and its telling he published something like that and it just was never surfaced by the media. Any rightie with a profile like Williams would have been outed immediately and harassed to give an apology…

Blazer

sorethumb

Tom Hunter

There are two central tenets of the woke philosophy. The first is feigned fragility. The second is angry intolerance. The union of fragility and intolerance has given us that curious and malevolent hybrid, the crybully, a delicate yet venomous species that thrives chiefly in lush, pampered environments.

adamsmith1922

Kimbo

All true, Pete. Nonetheless there is the incongruity (a fancy word for hypocrisy) that those criticising and shaming Seymour’s clumsy choice of phrase are doing so in the context of a “conversation” Golriz sought to initiate because she claims it is necessary.

Hence the justiable cynical suspicion that Golriz and those who share her views have no intent to engage in a genuine conversation, but rather manipulating it to a predetermined conclusion, all the while doing the thing they claim to want to stop – I nitiimdating into silence those with alternate views.

Kitty Catkin

duperez

I saw Ghahraman speaking in Parliament, early this week I think it was. Maybe my memory’s shot but I can’t remember seeing her before and thought, “Oh, that’s her, that’s the one who gets all the attention.”

I don’t know what she was speaking to but a brief view was enough for me. I wasn’t impressed in the moment and my shallowness had me instantly making a judgement about her mannerisms.

However, Ghahraman has done brilliantly. I’m not talking about major achievements, I’m talking attention and focus on her and what she wants people to talk about. I can’t remember a far back bench first-timer getting as much focus on them. She must be quoted and disparaged and talked about and defended to a greater extent than anyone ever sitting in that seat.

Her good fortune might be due to being of generation of the social media world but nevertheless, there it is, she’s being talked about in places like this constantly. Obviously those showering the attention on her think it is more important to give her that gift rather than the one of the blind eye and the deaf ear.

duperez

Not defending Ghahraman, but each is a part of a process and system. Because they are not all listed in headlines with major achievements doesn’t mean they haven’t achieved anything or have done nothing.

Ghahraman gets more attention than most because she ‘sells copy’ for the media. There are plenty in forums who are intent on seeing that continue. And its not fans.

Fight4NZ

Alan Wilkinson

harryk

‘But we are nowhere near any sort of legal clampdown on ‘free speech’ that some are claiming’

But some of Ardern’s fellow non-binding signatories at the Paris meeting are, and you have media boasting of patriotic self censorship. Who needs a ‘legal clampdown’ when certain subjects are taken out of circulation voluntarily?

There are riots in Jakarta. The Govt blocked all social media for a day. It didn’t prevent anything.

I don’t like what Williams tweeted, but the furore looks much ado about something historic involving the partner of a now MP (who wasn’t then) designed to keep ramping up attacks against the MP (who I don’t rate as an MP but think shouldn’t have to put up with so much shit throwing).

It was fairly obviously a poor taste attempt at a joke and not a threat.